Interaction between myelodysplasia-related gene mutations and ontogeny in acute myeloid leukemia: an appraisal of the new WHO and IC classifications and ELN risk stratification

Joseph GW. McCarter, David Nemirovsky, Christopher A. Famulare, Noushin Farnoud, Abhinita S. Mohanty, Zoe S. Stone-Molloy, Jordan Chervin, Brian J. Ball, Zachary D. Epstein-Peterson, Maria E. Arcila, Aaron J. Stonestrom, Andrew Dunbar, Sheng F. Cai, Jacob L. Glass, Mark B. Geyer, Raajit K. Rampal, Ellin Berman, Omar I. Abdel-Wahab, Eytan M. Stein, Martin S. Tallman, Ross L. Levine, Aaron D. Goldberg, Elli Papaemmanuil, Yanming Zhang, Mikhail Roshal, Andriy Derkach, Wenbin Xiao
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.26.22283876

Abstract

Accurate classification and risk stratification is critical for clinical decision making in AML patients. In the newly proposed World Health Organization (WHO) and International Consensus classifications (ICC) of hematolymphoid neoplasms, the presence of myelodysplasia-related (MR) gene mutations is included as one of the diagnostic criteria of AML, myelodysplasia-related (AML-MR), largely based on the assumption that these mutations are specific for AML with an antecedent myelodysplastic syndrome. ICC also prioritizes MR gene mutations over ontogeny (as defined by clinical history). Furthermore, European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2022 stratifies these MR gene mutations to the adverse-risk group. By thoroughly annotating a cohort of 344 newly diagnosed AML patients treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), we show that ontogeny assignment based on database registry lacks accuracy. MR gene mutations are frequently seen in de novo AML. Among MR gene mutations, only EZH2 and SF3B1 were associated with an inferior outcome in a univariate analysis. In a multivariate analysis, AML ontogeny had independent prognostic values even after adjusting for age, treatment, allo-transplant and genomic classes or ELN risks. Ontogeny also stratified the outcome of AML with MR gene mutations. Finally, de novo AML with MR gene mutations did not show an adverse outcome. In summary, our study emphasizes the importance of accurate ontogeny designation in clinical studies, demonstrates the independent prognostic value of AML ontogeny and questions the current classification and risk stratification of AML with MR gene mutations.

Key points

  • Both ontogeny and genomics show independent prognostic values in AML.

  • The newly proposed myelodysplasia-related gene mutations are neither specific to AML-MRCWHO2016 nor predictive for adverse outcomes.

  • Ontogeny stratifies the outcome of AML with myelodysplasia-related gene mutations.

Introduction

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous group of clinically aggressive hematologic malignancies characterized by maturation arrest and accumulation of myeloid blasts1,2. AML classification is a prerequisite for appropriate disease management and has been an evolving process. The French-American-British (FAB) classification, arguably the first widely adapted classification scheme was largely based on cytomorphology and cytochemical characteristics, which, despite limitations, informed the formulation of the modern AML classification3-5. With a deeper understanding of the underlying molecular pathogenesis, it has become clear that an integrated algorithm including clinical history, morphology, immunophenotype and genetics provides better disease delineation which can further guide clinical decision making6. This culminated in the WHO 2016 classification of hematolymphoid neoplasms (WHO2016) that classifies AML into 4 major subtypes: AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities (AML-RGA), AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRCWHO2016), therapy-related AML (t-AML) and AML, not otherwise specified (AML, NOS)4. Prior cytotoxic therapy for a non-myeloid disorder is a prerequisite for the diagnosis of t-AML. Diagnostic criteria for AML-MRCWHO2016 are: 1) history of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm (MDS/MPN); or 2) the presence of MDS-defining cytogenetic abnormalities; or 3) morphologic dysplasia in greater than 50% of cells of at least 2 lineages. The evaluation of dysplasia appears subjective with a poor interobserver agreement; therefore, its value as a criterion of AML-MRCWHO2016 has been questioned7-11. Notably, AML ontogeny, as defined by clinical history outweighed genomics in WHO2016 classification.

The genomic landscape of AML has been increasingly delineated in the last decade12-15. Genomic classification of AML has thus been proposed based on the presence of mutations/fusions adding prognostic value to risk stratification15,16. Besides the well-recognized AML-RGA as defined by WHO2016, two large genomic clusters of patients with either TP53 or chromatin-spliceosome mutations are also identified15, presumably corresponding to t-AML and AML-MRCWHO2016, respectively. Furthermore, a study based on a multi-center clinical trial demonstrated that mutations in 8 genes (i.e. ASXL1, BCOR, EZH2, STAG2, SF3B1, SRSF2, ZRSR2, U2AF1) within the chromatin-spliceosome cluster appear 95% specific to AML-MRCWHO2016 in comparison to de novo AML17. Based on these new data, both WHO2022 and ICC2022 include a new AML subtype classifying AMLs with the presence of any of these 8 gene mutations as AML with myelodysplasia-related gene mutations (MR genes)18,19. ICC also adds RUNX1 mutations to the list (MR/RUNX1)19. Moreover, while WHO still retains ontogeny in the diagnostic hierarchy18, genomic features override ontogeny in ICC which means that ICC abandons t-AML and AML-MRCWHO2016 as diagnostic entities19. Concurrently, a few studies have shown inferior outcomes in AML patients carrying MR gene mutations 16,20-23. Therefore, these mutations have been universally added to the adverse-risk group by the ELN20222. Despite of these new classifications/risk stratification, there is a lack of data demonstrating the relative importance of ontogeny versus genomics in AML prognosis. Thorough and comprehensive review of patient history is essential for an accurate ontogeny assignment, which unfortunately has been challenging in many published studies to date. Second, whether all the assigned MR gene mutations are specific to AML-MRCWHO2016 and are bona fide adverse risk factors as designated by ELN2022 awaits independent validation.

In this study, we manually annotated a cohort of 344 newly diagnosed AML patients treated at MSKCC and correlated ontogeny and genomics with outcomes. We show that: 1) ontogeny assignment from the database registry lacks sensitivity and specificity; 2) both ontogeny and genomics provide independent prognostic values in AML; 3) the newly proposed MR gene mutations are enriched in but not specific to AML-MRCWHO2016, and do not necessarily correlate with adverse outcomes; 4) de novo AML with MR gene mutations shows an outcome that falls in between favorable- and intermediate-risk groups.

Methods

Patient cohort

Patients with a newly diagnosed AML from January 2014 to December 2019 at MSKCC were retrospectively enrolled into this study. Any patients who lacked genomic data or follow ups were excluded. AML diagnosis was confirmed independently by two hematopathologists (M.R. and W.X.). Therapy-related AML (t-AML) was defined according to WHO2016 criteria as a late complication of cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy administered for a prior non-myeloid neoplastic or non-neoplastic disorder including alkylating agents, platinum derivatives, topoisomerase II inhibitors, anti-metabolites, anti-tubulin agents, external beam radiotherapy to active marrow sites, and therapeutic systemic radioisotopes4. AML-MRCWHO2016 was further divided into MR-Hx and MR-CG: AML was classified as MR-Hx when developed at least 3 months after the histologic documentation of antecedent MDS or MDS/MPN and not qualifying as t-AML. In the absence of the abovementioned history, AML with MDS-defining cytogenetic abnormalities was classified as MR-CG. Morphologic dysplasia was not included as one of the criteria for AML-MRCWHO2016 in this study. It should be noted that the criteria of t-AML, MR-Hx and MR-CG are nearly identical between WHO2008 and WHO2016. The remaining cases were classified as de novo AML. Therefore, AML ontogeny was assigned as t-AML, AML-MRCWHO2016 (specifically MR-Hx vs. MR-CG) and de novo AML. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at MSKCC.

Chromosome and FISH analysis

Conventional chromosome analysis was performed on fresh bone marrow aspirate and/or peripheral blood specimens following standard protocol. At least 20 metaphase cells were analyzed, and karyotype was described according to the international system of human chromosome nomenclature (ISCN, 2016). FISH analysis was performed on bone marrow or peripheral blood pellets following standard protocols. Various commercial FISH probes, specific for myeloid neoplasia, such as for deletion or loss of chromosomes 5, 7, 17/TP53, gain of chromosome 8, deletion of 20q, and for MLL/KMT2A (11q23) translocations, EVI1 (3q26.2), and other translocations, were used as appropriate. At least 300 cells were analyzed in each sample, and results were described according to ISCN, 2016. FISH results were correlated with chromosome analysis findings, when feasible also on metaphase cells for a precise interpretation of chromosome abnormalities. All cytogenetic karyotypes were manually re-annotated by a cytogeneticist (Y.Z.) based on numerical and structural chromosomal abnormalities, such as gain, loss, deletion, addition, duplication, balanced or unbalanced translocations, inversion, and derivative chromosomes, as well as marker chromosome, ring chromosome to define complex karyotypes (CK), i.e., three or more clonal chromosome abnormalities, clonal heterogeneity, and monosomal karyotype (MK).

Mutation profiling

Next generation sequencing (NGS) studies were performed on submitted bone marrow or peripheral blood cells at diagnosis using one of the three clinically validated targeted panels: Raindance Thunderstorm (RDTS, 28-gene panel), Raindance Thunderbolt (RDTB, 49-gene panel) or IMPACT-heme (400-gene panel) (supplemental Table 1) 24. The detection of FLT3 mutations were supplemented by PCR tests. There were 23 patients who had NGS studies not at diagnosis but only performed on refractory/persistent disease (>20% blasts) within 4 months after the initiation of treatment. Patients who only had NGS data at relapse were excluded. Candidate mutations were annotated with VAGrENT (v. 3.3.0) (https://github.com/cancerit/VAGrENT) and Ensemble (v. 91) - VEP (v. 92) (https://github.com/Ensembl/ensembl-vep). They were compared to the COSMIC (v. 81)25, OncoKB26 and Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) 27 databases along with recurrence in a panel of normal samples to provide further information about the prevalence of each mutation in human cancer and normal populations. This information was used for the manual curation of each variant in order to classify it as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, or a variant of uncertain significance. Pathogenic and likely pathogenic mutations were retained for analysis and visualization (supplemental Table 2).

Genomic class

Genomic class assignment was based on the WHO2022 and IC2022 classifications18,19. The patients were classified in an hierarchical order as well-defined AML entities with fusions including t(15;17), t(8;21), inv(16), t(6;9), MLL rearrangements, and EVI1 rearrangements, followed by NPM1, CEBPA bZIP, TP53, and lastly MR/RUNX1 mutations. Disease-defining fusions override disease-defining mutations when co-occurring. There were no patients with NPM1 and TP53 co-mutations. One patient with a CEBPA bZIP mutation and a subclonal TP53 mutation was classified as AML with CEBPA bZIP mutation. AML with MR/RUNX1 mutations is defined as the presence of any MR/RUNX1 mutations but no disease defining-fusions or mutations (i.e. NPM1, CEBPA bZIP or TP53).

Statistics

Descriptive statistics, including median and interquartile range [IQR] for continuous variables, and percentages for categorical variables, are provided. Fisher’s exact test or χ2 test was used to evaluate the association between two categorical variables. Wilcoxon rank-sum test or Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the difference in a continuous variable between/among patient groups. Univariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association between mutations profiles and AML ontogeny (MR-Hx vs. de novo AML, MR-Hx vs. t-AML and t-AML vs. de novo AML). Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the start of systematic treatment for the AML or the date of diagnosis for patients under supportive care until death or the date of the last follow-up. Left truncation was used to account for molecular testing performed after the start of first line chemotherapy in a small group of patients (n=23). Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS and log-rank test to evaluated differences between groups. Univariable Cox proportional hazard regression to evaluate OS associated with disease-related determinants such as AML ontogeny and mutation profiles. We also evaluated AML ontogeny related risk in multivariable Cox-regression models adjusting for age (modeled by cubic spline), initial treatment at diagnosis, allogenic hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell (allo-HSCT) transplant (modeled as time-dependent variable), presence of TP53 mutation, ELN2022 risk, cytogenetics, genomics, or sequencing platform. In sensitivity analysis, we stratified on ELN2022 risk, cytogenetics, genomics, or sequencing platform while adjusting for the same set of covariates to confirm association between AML ontology and OS. All analyses and graphics were produced using R version 4.0.3.

Results

Re-classification of AML ontogeny

The entire study cohort comprised 344 patients newly diagnosed as AML (male to female ratio: 1.4; median age: 66.7 years, supplemental Table 3). Based on the information extracted from the database registry, the ontogeny was assigned as follows: t-AML (n=48, 14.0%), and AML-MRCWHO2016 (n=139, 40.4%), and de novo AML (n=157, 45.6%). In order to accurately classify AML based on ontogeny and WHO2016 criteria, a multidisciplinary team curated each patient via a thorough chart review including the history of antecedent hematologic diseases, cancers, chemoradiation therapy, laboratory tests, and cytogenetic reports. Curated data was independently validated by two board-certified hematopathologists (M.R. and W.X.). Karyotyping and FISH results were re-annotated by a board-certified cytogeneticist (Y.Z.). Any discrepancies were resolved by group consensus.

To this end, the entire cohort was re-classified based on the thorough review into t-AML (92/344, 26.7%), MR-Hx (107/344, 31.1%), MR-CG (29/344, 8.4%), and de novo AML (116/344, 33.7%) (see Methods for definitions, Table 1). Although the initial classification of t-AML was highly specific, the sensitivity was only 52.2%. Half of t-AMLs were initially misclassified as AML-MRCWHO2016 or de novo AML due to an inadequate history review. The initial classification of AML-MRCWHO2016 was moderately specific (79.3%) and sensitive (70.6%). Importantly, the initial designation of de novo AML had a specificity of only 78.1% with nearly a third of these cases being t-AML or AML-MRCWHO2016. These findings demonstrate the importance of thorough cohort annotation to render an accurate assignment of AML ontogeny.

View this table:
Table 1. Reclassification of AML ontogeny

Prediction of AML Ontogeny by mutations

The clinical characteristics of AML subtypes were shown in Table 2. Patients with de novo AML were younger than those with t-AML or MR-Hx (median age: 60 years vs 70 or 69 years, respectively, p<0.001). There were roughly two-fold more patients with de novo AML receiving induction chemotherapy and allo-transplant than those with t-AML and MR-Hx (Table 2). The median interval between MDS or MDS/MPN and MR-Hx was 15 months (IQR: 6-26 months). The median latency of t-AML from the prior chemoradiation therapy was 71 months (IQR: 29-106 months). A small proportion of the patients with de novo AML (8/116, 6.9%), MR-Hx (13/107, 12%) and MR-CG (4/29, 14%) also had a history of solid cancers mostly at early stages and treated with surgical resection solely for which none of whom received chemoradiation therapy.

View this table:
Table 2. Clinical characteristics of AML ontogeny subtypes

Gene mutations covered by all 3 panels and additional MR genes (BCOR, SRSF2, STAG2, U2AF1, ZRSR2) only covered by RDTB and IMPACT-heme panels were shown in Figure 1A-B. As expected, mutations in NPM1, DNMT3A, IDH1, IDH2 and FLT3 were predictive for de novo AML, while TP53 mutations were highly predictive for t-AML (Figure 1B and supplemental Figure 1A). We also confirmed that mutations in ASXL1, SF3B1, SRSF2, EZH2 and RUNX1 were predictive for MR-Hx over de novo AML17,28(Figure 1B-C and supplemental Figure 1B). Surprisingly, KRAS mutations were mostly present in MR-Hx. Both WHO-MR and ICC-MR gene combinations were also predictive for MR-Hx (Figure 1C). When t-AML and MR-Hx were compared, TP53 mutations were more predictive for t-AML while mutations in SF3B1, SRSF2, and RUNX1 were predictive for MR-Hx (supplemental Figure 1C). Of note, the mutational profile of MR-CG resembled that of t-AML with a high prevalence of TP53 mutations (16/29, 55.2% in MR-CG and 36/92, 39.1% in t-AML) and complex karyotype (CK), suggestive of shared biology driven by TP53 mutations. TP53 mutations were only present in a small subset of MR-Hx (13/107, 12.1%), and rarely in de novo AML (2/116, 1.7%).

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Genomic profile predicts AML ontogeny.

A. Oncoplot of AML subtypes (de novo AML, t-AML, MR-Hx and MR-CG). NGS panels are indicated as platform (RDTS, RDTB and IMPACT-heme). Genes not covered by RDTS are indicated by grey color. ELN2017 and ELN2022 risk groups are listed. EVI1 indicates EVI1 rearrangements. MLL indicates MLL rearrangements. CK: complex karyotype. MK: monosomal karyotype. B. Bar plots of genomic aberrations in each AML subtypes. Proportions are shown. MR/RUNX1 genes are bolded. C. Association between individual gene mutations and AML ontogeny. Odds ratio was depicted on a log10 scale. The comparison is between MR-Hx and de novo AML.

Correlation between AML ontogeny and genomic classification

Based on previous studies and the new WHO and IC classification15,18,19, AML patients were divided into 8 genomic classes: favorable fusions [t(15;17), t(8;21) or inv(16), n=19, 5.5%], MLL rearranged (n=10, 2.9%), t(6;9) (n=2, 0.6%), EVI1 rearranged (n=18, 5.2%), NPM1 mutations (n=43, 12.5%), CEBPA bZIP mutations (n=11, 3.2%), TP53 mutations (n=64, 18.6%), and MR/RUNX1 mutations (n=102, 29.7%) (Table 2 and supplemental Table 4). Sixty-two (18%) patients had mutations that did not belong to any of these subgroups (not otherwise specified, NOS). Thirteen patients (3.8%) had no mutations detected (negative, NEG).

Patients with favorable fusions and CEBPA bZIP mutations were younger than other subgroups (supplemental Table 4). NPM1 mutated and MLL rearranged AML showed female preponderance. The majority of AML with favorable fusions, CEBPA bZIP or NPM1 mutations were de novo and a small proportion t-AML (Figure 2). Interestingly, 3/11 (27.3%) CEBPA bZIP and 7/43 (16.3%) NPM1 mutated AML had a history of MDS (one had MDS/MPN) with a median interval of 6 months (IQR 3.8-10.5 months) before progressing to AML (supplemental Table 5). Among them, 2 CEBPA bZIP and 2 NPM1 mutated patients had MDS-EB2 (10-15% blasts). In addition, 1/10 (10%) MLL and 9/18 (50%) EVI1 rearranged AML had antecedent MDS or MDS/MPN with a median interval of 12 months (IQR 4-24 months) prior to AML (supplemental Table 5). 6 patients were evaluated for EVI1 rearrangements at the stage of MDS and 5 were positive, 4 with 10-15% blasts and 1 with 5%. Of note, nearly all these patients would be classified as de novo AML based on the WHO2022 and approximately 50% would if ICC2022 is applied.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Distribution of AML ontogeny subtypes in each genomic class.

The width of each bar represents the number of patients. MR indicates AML patients with MR gene mutations (including ASXL1, BCOR, EZH2, STAG2, SF3B1, SRSF2, ZRSR2, U2AF1, but no RUNX1 mutations). MR-RUNX1 indicates AML patients with both MR gene and RUNX1 gene mutations. RUNX1 indicates AML patients with RUNX1 but no MR gene mutations. MR or RUNX1 indicates AML patients with MR and/or RUNX1 gene mutations. NOS indicates AML patients with mutations detected but unable to assign to a well-defined entity. NEG indicates AML patients with no mutations or rearrangements detected.

TP53 mutated AML comprised predominantly t-AML (35/64, 54.7%), MR-CG (16/64, 25%) and MR-Hx (12/64, 18.8%) groups. Only 1/64 (1.6%) TP53 mutated AML was de novo (supplemental Table 4). This patient had de novo monocytic AML with TET2 and TP53 mutations and extensive necrosis in the marrow. FISH studies performed on peripheral blood samples were negative. The patient had refractory disease and died in 6 months. 31/64 (48.4%) patients with TP53 mutated AML had a prior MDS (19 t-MDS) or MDS/MPN stage and the median interval was 11 months (IQR 4-15 months) before the development of AML. Strikingly, 61/64 (95.3%) patients with TP53 mutated AML had CG abnormalities involving -5/del5q, -7/del7q, -17/del17p and/or CK. Conversely, 61/119 (51.3%) patients with such CG abnormalities harbored TP53 mutations. Specifically, 46/55 (83.6%) patients with concurrent CK and monosomal karyotypes harbored TP53 mutations.

MR/RUNX1 mutated AML were mostly MR-Hx (51/102, 50%), and t-AML (18/102, 17%) (Figure 2 and supplemental Table 4). Only 5 patients were MR-CG (4.9%). Importantly, 29/102 (28%) patients were de novo AML. Of note, 10 (9.6%) patients had isolated trisomy 8 and/or del20q only, which was newly added by ICC but not WHO as MDS-defining CG abnormalities, and 5 of them were de novo AML (supplemental Table 6).

AML ontogeny predicts outcome independent of ELN2022 risk stratification

De novo AML had a significantly better overall survival (OS) than all 3 other subtypes (median: not reached vs. 8.4 months (95% CI: 6-12.1 months) in t-AML, 9.4 months (95% CI: 6.5-14.7 months) in MR-Hx and 7.7 months (95% CI: 4.3-17.1 months) in MR-CG, p<0.0001, Figure 3A). This difference remained statistically significant in patients treated with daunorubicin+cytarabine (7+3) induction therapy, if TP53 mutated patients were excluded or after stratified by ELN2022 risk groups, genomic classes, CG risks and NGS platforms (supplemental Figures 2-3). AML ontogeny further stratifies the outcomes of all 3 ELN2022 risk groups but of only the intermediate (not favorable, or adverse) CG risk group (supplemental Figure 4).

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Both AML ontogeny and ELN risks have independent prognostic values.

A. Kaplan-Meier curves of overall survival divided by AML ontogeny subtypes. B. Kaplan-Meier curves of overall survival divided by genomic classes. Both patients with t(6;9) received allo-HSCT. C. AML ontogeny related risk was evaluated in multivariable Cox-regression models adjusting for age (modeled by cubic spline), initial treatment at diagnosis, allogenic transplant (modeled as time-dependent variable), and genomic classes. 7+3, daunorubicin+cytarabine including CPX-351; HMA, hypomethylating agents; low DAC, low-dose cytarabine.

Genomic classes significantly correlated with OS (Fig 3B). The impact of genomic class was more significant in de novo AML and only borderline significant in t-AML (supplemental Figure 5). Patients with favorable fusions and CEBPA mutations had the most favorable OS (median not reached, Fig 3B). NPM1 mutated and MR/RUNX1 mutated AML had a median OS of 28.9 months (95% CI: 14.6 months-not reached) and 16.3 months (95% CI: 9.1-23.4 months), respectively. Interestingly, the outcome of both CEBPA and NPM1 mutated AML were further stratified by ontogeny (supplemental Figure 6B-C), somewhat in contrast to a recent large cohort showing NPM1 mutated t-AML has similar OS to de novo counterpart after excluding early death 29. As expected, either TP53 mutated or EVI1 rearranged AML had dismal outcome (median OS: 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.4-7.5 months) and 10.3 months (95% CI: 4.9-35.7 months), respectively) regardless of ontogeny (supplemental Figure 6D-E). Further analysis on TP53 mutated AML showed that neither mutation burden, biallelic status, complex karyotypes, or co-mutations in signaling molecules affected the outcomes (supplemental Figure 7).

In univariate analysis, CEBPA, DNMT3A, NPM1 and IDH2 mutations were associated with a superior OS (supplemental Figure 8A). In contrast, TP53, KRAS, NOTCH2, EZH2 and SF3B1 mutations were associated with an inferior OS. Of note, mutations in most MR genes and RUNX1 were not significantly associated with outcome. To study the interaction between mutations and ontogeny, the impact of mutations on OS was adjusted for AML subtype. To this end, the prognostic values of many gene mutations (DNMT3A, NPM1, IDH2, KRAS, NOTCH2, EZH2 and SF3B1) were no longer significant, while TP53 and CEBPA mutations remained prognostic (supplemental Figure 8B). In a multivariate analysis adjusting for age, initial treatment for induction, and allo-HSCT, both AML subtypes and genomic classes or ELN2022 risks were significantly associated with outcomes (Figure 3C and supplemental Figure 8C), demonstrating that ontogeny and genomics provide independent prognostic values.

Specificity of myelodysplasia related gene mutations for MR-Hx AML

We next focused on MR/RUNX1 mutated AML. Although a previous study had suggested that MR gene mutations are highly specific to MR-Hx (with 95% specificity)17, the specificity of these gene mutations to MR-Hx remains controversial 28,30. We decided to address these issues with our well-annotated cohort. We first examined the MR/RUNX1 group that were sequenced by targeted NGS panels covering all 8 MR and RUNX1 genes. Among 42 patients, mutations of MR/RUNX1 genes were present in 14 de novo AML and 28 MR-Hx AML, resulting in a positive predictive value of only 66% for MR-Hx. This is similar to our entire cohort (positive predictive value 51/80, 64%, specificity 74%) regardless of NGS panels used (Figure 2) as well as other studies28,30. If RUNX1 mutations are excluded, the positive predictive value and specificity of MR gene mutations for MR-Hx is 70% and 75%, respectively.

De novo AML with myelodysplasia related gene mutations do not have an adverse outcome

Nearly one third of the AML patients with MR/RUNX1 mutations were de novo. The ELN2022 guideline risk stratifies these patients to the adverse-risk group regardless of ontogeny. We thus investigated the impact of ontogeny on the OS in the patients carrying these mutations. In this group, there were very few patients with MR-CG, insufficient for a statistical analysis. However, patients with de novo AML had a remarkably better outcome than those with MR-Hx or t-AML (median OS: not reached vs 7.3 (95% CI: 5.1-17 months) or 6 months (95% CI: 3 months-not reached), p<0.001, Figure 4A, and supplemental Table 7). This was also true in the patients with MR only or RUNX1 only mutations (supplemental Figure 9 A-B). Comparable OS was observed between ELN2017 intermediate and adverse risk groups, suggesting even ASXL1 and RUNX1 mutations may not be able to risk stratify this patient population (supplemental Figure 9C). The proportion of adverse CG abnormalities was significantly lower in de novo AML subgroups (supplemental Table 7), but the difference in OS was small between intermediate and adverse CG risk groups (supplemental Figure 9D). Univariate analysis stratified by AML subtypes showed mutations in NRAS and KRAS but not any of the individual MR/RUNX1 genes were associated with an inferior OS (supplemental Figure 10A). A multivariate analysis showed that age, initial treatment for induction, allo-HSCT, and AML ontogeny but not NRAS or KRAS mutations or CG risks remained statistically significant (supplemental Figure 10B). The prognostic values of AML ontogeny were even more significant if the analysis was restricted to the patients uniformly treated with induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin+cytarabine regimen (Figure 4B). De novo AML with MR/RUNX1 mutations had an outcome that fell in between favorable- and intermediate-risk groups when compared to the remainder of the patients stratified by either ELN 2017 or ELN2022 risks (Figure 4C and supplemental Figure 11). Interestingly, de novo AML with WHO-MR mutations had an outcome overlapping with ELN2022 intermediate-risk group but de novo AML with only RUNX1 mutations had a rather favorable outcome (supplemental Figure 11D).

Figure 4.
Figure 4. AML ontogeny determines the outcome of AML with MR/RUNX1 gene mutations.

A. Kaplan-Meier curves of overall survival of AML with MR/RUNX1 gene mutations divided by ontogeny. B. AML ontogeny related risk was evaluated in multivariable Cox-regression models adjusting for age (modeled by cubic spline), allogenic transplant (modeled as time-dependent variable), NRAS/KRAS mutations, and CG risks in AML patients with MR/RUNX1 mutations uniformly treated with 7+3 induction therapy. C. Kaplan-Meier curves of AML patients were divided by ELN2022 risk groups. De novo AML with MR/RUNX1 gene mutations separated from ELN2022 adverse group show an outcome falling in between favorable and intermediate risk groups.

Discussion

The most striking finding of our study is the inaccuracy of ontogeny assignment based on initial database registry, which is likely not unique to this study and/or our cancer center. It may also have been encountered by many large cohorts of AML studies as several landmark genomic studies on de novo AML included at least 15-20% cases harboring apparent MDS-defining cytogenetic abnormalities with or without TP53 mutations 13,17,31-35, consistent with either t-AML or AML-MRCWHO2016. This number is certainly an underestimate as not all t-AML or AML-MRCWHO2016 cases have MDS-defining cytogenetic abnormalities. The inaccurate assignment of ontogeny is due to 1) inadequate history documentation of antecedent MDS or MDS/MPN, or cytotoxic treatment for other types of malignancies/disorders; 2) delayed and/or overlooked cytogenetic information showing MDS-defining abnormalities; and 3) overcalling AML-MRCWHO2016 solely based on morphologic dysplasia. Our study emphasizes the importance of cohort annotation to render an accurate assignment of AML ontogeny.

Our study demonstrates the prognostic value of AML ontogeny independent of genomics and/or ELN risk stratification. The designation of ontogeny as either MR-Hx/MR-CG or t-AML has clinical implications. Many studies have shown that “secondary” AML, mostly MR-Hx/MR-CG and t-AML, is associated with an inferior outcome with or without allo-HSCT 16,33,34,36-40. Our study has confirmed these findings by showing MR-Hx, MR-CG and t-AML all confer worse outcomes than de novo AML even after adjusting for age, treatment, transplant, and ELN risks. Importantly, several clinical trials had shown that CPX-351, a liposomal form of daunorubicin+cytarabine, improves outcomes of AML-MRCWHO2016 and t-AML compared to conventional daunorubicin+cytarabine41-43. Therefore, an accurate designation of AML ontogeny remains important for clinical decisions.

How to best incorporate ontogeny and genomics into AML classification and risk stratification to guide clinical management remains to be determined particularly for AML with MR gene mutations. Although many MR genes are moderately predictive for MR-Hx, our study found that they are also frequent in de novo AML resulting in only an approximate 70% specificity to MR-Hx, significantly lower than the 95% previously reported 17. The discrepancy may be due to different cohorts but is more likely related to misclassification. The suboptimal specificity of MR gene mutations has also been observed in a few recent studies 28,30. This questions the approach of classifying these MR genes into one entity largely aiming to replace MR-Hx or AML-MRCWHO2016.

Several studies have demonstrated inferior outcomes in AML with MR gene mutations, but its independent prognostic value in de novo AML has been controversial 21-23,44. Recent studies have shown that MR gene mutations in a favorable-risk group (mostly de novo) do not affect outcome30,45. Our findings indicate that the outcome of AML with MR gene mutations in ELN2017 intermediate/adverse risk group is stratified by ontogeny and de novo patients had an OS not inferior to intermediate risk group. Therefore, it would be reasonable to restrict the diagnostic criteria of AML-MR to: 1) history of MDS or MDS/MPN (i.e. MR-Hx); or 2) MDS-defining CGA (i.e. MR-CG). A majority of patients with AML with MR gene mutations will meet one or both of these two criteria and therefore be classified as AML-MR. In order to better study the biology and management of de novo AML with MR gene mutations that do not meet either one of these two criteria, a provisional entity could be established: (de novo) AML with MR gene mutations. Our data demonstrate that assignment of mutations in all these MR genes into adverse risk groups is likely oversimplified and inaccurate and may lead to mismanagement in a subset of these patients. Our data also suggest that ontogeny of MR-Hx and t-AML bears more prognostic weight than MR gene mutations and should be included in AML risk stratification for the patients lacking favorable risk factors. The findings that ontogeny carries prognostic value independent of genomics are intriguing, which may be attributed to clonal architectural complexity, immune dysregulations, and microenvironment among other factors.

Our findings support the classification of AML with TP53 mutations as a distinct entity due to its dismal prognosis regardless of ontogeny, which has recently been demonstrated by several studies 35,37,46,47. We and others show that nearly >90% of AML with TP53 mutations harbor CK or monosomal karyotype involving chromosomes 5, 7 and/or 1746. Notably, the similar mutational profile between MR-CG and t-AML is largely driven by TP53 mutations 47-49, further supporting a separation of AML with TP53 mutations from others.

Because this is a retrospective, single-centered study at a tertiary cancer center, there is a potential inherent bias towards more adverse risk patients. However, we were able to review the detailed clinical history and pathologic findings of every patient in this cohort. To our knowledge, this is to date the most well-annotated cohort with a large number of patients with therapy related or antecedent MDS history, which is essential for addressing the clinical impact of ontogeny. Although not all the patients were uniformly treated, most of the patients received standard intensive induction chemotherapy with the daunorubicin+cytarabine regimen and the conclusion remained valid when analysis was restricted to this subset of patients. Moreover, preliminary data from several recent studies performed in different centers support our findings with respect to AML with MR gene mutations50-53, arguing against the inclusion of all MR gene mutations into the adverse-risk group. A recent study suggested that the number of MR mutations predicts outcome16. Unfortunately, our study was not powered to validate the results due to an incomplete coverage of all MR genes in a subset of patients. More studies are urgently needed to delineate the role of individual MR genes, its combination and allelic burden in AML classification and risk stratification54,55.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

Authorship contributions

J.G.M. performed computational analysis and curated mutations. D.N. and A. K. performed statistical analysis. C.F., Z.S.S., J.C., B.B., Z.D.E., A.D.G., M.R. and W.X. performed chart review. N.F. A.S.M. and M.E.A. assisted mutation analysis. A.J.S, A.D., S.F.C., J.L.G, M.B.G., R.K.R., E.B, O.I.A., E.M.S., A.D.G., M.S.T. and R.L.L provided patient care. E.P. supervised computational analysis. Y.Z. reviewed cytogenetic data. M.R. and W.X. reviewed pathology. W.X. initiated, designed and supervised the study. W.X. drafted and all authors finalized and approved the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

M.E.A served as consultant for Janssen Global Services, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and has received honoraria from Biocartis, Invivoscribe, physician educational resources (PER), Peerview Institute for medical education, clinical care options, RMEI medical education. A.J.S. reports his spouse is an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb. B.J.B served on the advisory board for Oncovalent and Bristol Myers Squibb. S.F.C. is a consultant for and holds equity interest in Imago Biosciences, none of which are directly related to the content of this paper. J.L.G. received consulting fees from GLG. M.B.G. receives research support from Actinium, Amgen, and Sanofi and has served in an advisory role for Sanofi, Novartis, and Allogene. R.K.R has received consulting Fees from Incyte Corporation, Celgene/BMS, Blueprint, Abbvie, CTI, Stemline, Galecto, Pharmaessentia, Constellation/Morphosys, Sierra Oncology/GSK, Sumitomo Dainippon Kartos, Servier, Zentalis, Karyopharm and research funding from Constellation pharmaceuticals, Ryvu, Zentalis and Stemline Therapeutics. O.A.-W. has served as a consultant for H3B Biomedicine, Foundation Medicine Inc., Merck, Prelude Therapeutics, and Janssen, and is on the Scientific Advisory Board of Envisagenics Inc., AIChemy, Harmonic Discovery Inc., and Pfizer Boulder; O.A.-W. has received prior research funding from H3B Biomedicine, Nurix Therapeutics, Minovia Therapeutics, and LOXO Oncology unrelated to the current manuscript. A.D.G. received research funding from Celularity, ADC Therapeutics, Aprea, AROG, Pfizer, Prelude, and Trillium; received research funding from and served as a consultant for Aptose and Daiichi Sankyo; served as a consultant and member of advisory committees for Astellas, Celgene, and Genentech; received research funding from, served as a consultant for, and was a member of advisory committees for AbbVie; and received honoraria from Dava Oncology. M.S.T. has received research funding from AbbVie, Orsenix, BioSight, Glycomimetics, Rafael Pharmaceuticals and Amgen. M.S.T. is on the advisory boards of AbbVie, Daiichi-Sankyo, Orsenix, KAHR, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Roche, BioSight, Novartis, Innate Pharmaceuticals, Kura, Syros Pharmaceuticals and Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals. M.S.T. has received royalties from UpToDate. M.S.T. is on DSMB of HOVON protocol Ho156 and adjudication committee of Foghorn protocol FHD-286. RLL is on the supervisory board of Qiagen and is a scientific advisor to Imago, Mission Bio, Syndax. Zentalis, Ajax, Bakx, Auron, Prelude, C4 Therapeutics and Isoplexis for which he receives equity support. RLL receives research support from Ajax and Abbvie and has consulted for Incyte, Janssen, Morphosys and Novartis. He has received honoraria from Astra Zeneca and Kura for invited lectures and from Gilead for grant reviews. E.P is a founder, equity holder and holds fiduciary role in Isabl Inc. M.R. is on the scientific advisory board in Auron Pharmaceutical for which he received equity support. He receives research funding from Celularity, Roche-Genentech, Beat AML and NGM and travel fund from BD Biosciences. W.X. has received research support from Stemline Therapeutics.

Acknowledgement

We thank Michael R. Waarts for his critical reading. This study was funded by the Center for Hematologic Malignancies at MSKCC and in part through the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748. A.J.S. is supported by a Young Investigator Award from the Edward P. Evans Foundation. A.J.D. is a William Raveis Charitable Fund Physician-Scientist of the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (PST-24-19). S.F.C. is supported by a National Cancer Institute grant (K08 CA241371-01A1). J.L.G. is supported by a National Cancer Institute grant (NCI K08CA230172) and Equinox Cycle for Survival. O.A.-W. is supported in part by the Edward P. Evans Foundation, NIH/NCI (R01 CA251138 and R01 CA242020), NIH/NHLBI (R01 HL128239), NIH/NCI P50 CA254838-01, and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. R.L.L. is supported by a Cycle For Survival Innovation Grant and National Cancer Institute R35 CA197594. WX is supported by Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation and the Runx1 Research Program, MSK’s Cycle for Survival’s Equinox Innovation Award in Rare Cancers, MSK Leukemia SPORE Career Enhancement Program and a National Cancer Institute grant (K08CA267058-01).

Abbreviations

WHO
World Health Organization
ICC
International Consensus Classification
ELN
European LeukemiaNet
AML-MRC
Acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes
t-AML
therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia
MDS
myelodysplastic syndromes
MDS/MPN
myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative syndromes
MR-Hx
acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplasia-related based on history of MDS or MDS/MPN
MR-CG
acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplasia-related based on MDS-defining cytogenetic changes (no history of MDS or MDS/MPN)

Reference

  1. 1.↵
    Pollyea DA, Bixby D, Perl A, et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Acute Myeloid Leukemia, Version 2.2021. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(1):16–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    Döhner H, Wei AH, Appelbaum FR, et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2022 recommendations from an international expert panel on behalf of the ELN. Blood. 2022;140(12):1345–1377.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel M-T, et al. Proposals for the Classification of the Acute Leukaemias French-American-British (FAB) Co-operative Group. British Journal of Haematology. 1976;33(4):451–458.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood. 2016;127(20):2391–2405.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Vardiman JW, Thiele J, Arber DA, et al. The 2008 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia: rationale and important changes. Blood. 2009;114(5):937–951.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Döhner H, Estey E, Grimwade D, et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel. Blood. 2017;129(4):424–447.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Weinberg OK, Pozdnyakova O, Campigotto F, et al. Reproducibility and prognostic significance of morphologic dysplasia in de novo acute myeloid leukemia. Modern Pathology. 2015;28(7):965–976.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.
    Weinberg OK, Gibson CJ, Blonquist TM, et al. NPM1 mutation but not RUNX1 mutation or multilineage dysplasia defines a prognostic subgroup within de novo acute myeloid leukemia lacking recurrent cytogenetic abnormalities in the revised 2016 WHO classification. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(7):E123–e124.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.
    Wandt H, Schäkel U, Kroschinsky F, et al. MLD according to the WHO classification in AML has no correlation with age and no independent prognostic relevance as analyzed in 1766 patients. Blood. 2008;111(4):1855–1861.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.
    Miesner M, Haferlach C, Bacher U, et al. Multilineage dysplasia (MLD) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) correlates with MDS-related cytogenetic abnormalities and a prior history of MDS or MDS/MPN but has no independent prognostic relevance: a comparison of 408 cases classified as “AML not otherwise specified” (AML-NOS) or “AML with myelodysplasia-related changes” (AML-MRC). Blood. 2010;116(15):2742–2751.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    Haferlach T, Schoch C, Löffler H, et al. Morphologic dysplasia in de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is related to unfavorable cytogenetics but has no independent prognostic relevance under the conditions of intensive induction therapy: results of a multiparameter analysis from the German AML Cooperative Group studies. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(2):256–265.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    Tyner JW, Tognon CE, Bottomly D, et al. Functional genomic landscape of acute myeloid leukaemia. Nature. 2018;562(7728):526–531.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Genomic and Epigenomic Landscapes of Adult De Novo Acute Myeloid Leukemia. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368(22):2059–2074.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.
    Patel JP, Gönen M, Figueroa ME, et al. Prognostic Relevance of Integrated Genetic Profiling in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. New England Journal of Medicine. 2012;366(12):1079–1089.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    Papaemmanuil E, Gerstung M, Bullinger L, et al. Genomic Classification and Prognosis in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(23):2209–2221.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Tazi Y, Arango-Ossa JE, Zhou Y, et al. Unified classification and risk-stratification in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):4622.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    Lindsley RC, Mar BG, Mazzola E, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia ontogeny is defined by distinct somatic mutations. Blood. 2015;125(9):1367–1376.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    Khoury JD, Solary E, Abla O, et al. The 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours: Myeloid and Histiocytic/Dendritic Neoplasms. Leukemia. 2022;36(7):1703–1719.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian RP, et al. International Consensus Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemias: integrating morphologic, clinical, and genomic data. Blood. 2022;140(11):1200–1228.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Ohgami RS, Ma L, Merker JD, et al. Next-generation sequencing of acute myeloid leukemia identifies the significance of TP53, U2AF1, ASXL1, and TET2 mutations. Mod Pathol. 2015;28(5):706–714.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Song GY, Kim T, Ahn SY, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation can overcome the adverse prognosis indicated by secondary-type mutations in de novo acute myeloid leukemia. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2022;57(12):1810–1819.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.
    Caprioli C, Lussana F, Salmoiraghi S, et al. Clinical significance of chromatin-spliceosome acute myeloid leukemia: a report from the Northern Italy Leukemia Group (NILG) randomized trial 02/06. Haematologica. 2021;106(10):2578–2587.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Gardin C, Pautas C, Fournier E, et al. Added prognostic value of secondary AML-like gene mutations in ELN intermediate-risk older AML: ALFA-1200 study results. Blood Adv. 2020;4(9):1942–1949.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Xiao W, Bharadwaj M, Levine M, et al. PHF6 and DNMT3A mutations are enriched in distinct subgroups of mixed phenotype acute leukemia with T-lineage differentiation. Blood Adv. 2018;2(23):3526–3539.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    Forbes SA, Beare D, Boutselakis H, et al. COSMIC: somatic cancer genetics at high-resolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45(D1):D777–d783.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Chakravarty D, Gao J, Phillips SM, et al. OncoKB: A Precision Oncology Knowledge Base. JCO Precis Oncol. 2017;2017.
  27. 27.↵
    Karczewski KJ, Francioli LC, Tiao G, et al. The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans. Nature. 2020;581(7809):434–443.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Gao Y, Jia M, Mao Y, et al. Distinct Mutation Landscapes Between Acute Myeloid Leukemia With Myelodysplasia-Related Changes and De Novo Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Am J Clin Pathol. 2022;157(5):691–700.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Othman J, Meggendorfer M, Tiacci E, et al. Overlapping features of therapy-related and de novoNPM1-mutated AML. Blood. 2022.
  30. 30.↵
    Lachowiez CA, Long N, Saultz JN, et al. Comparison and validation of the 2022 European LeukemiaNet guidelines in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Adv. 2022.
  31. 31.↵
    Schoch C, Kern W, Schnittger S, Hiddemann W, Haferlach T. Karyotype is an independent prognostic parameter in therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML): an analysis of 93 patients with t-AML in comparison to 1091 patients with de novo AML. Leukemia. 2004;18(1):120–125.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.
    van der Werf I, Wojtuszkiewicz A, Meggendorfer M, et al. Splicing factor gene mutations in acute myeloid leukemia offer additive value if incorporated in current risk classification. Blood Adv. 2021;5(17):3254–3265.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Martínez-Cuadrón D, Megías-Vericat JE, Serrano J, et al. Treatment patterns and outcomes of 2310 patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia: a PETHEMA registry study. Blood Adv. 2022;6(4):1278–1295.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    Lalayanni C, Gavriilaki E, Athanasiadou A, et al. Secondary Acute Myeloid Leukemia (sAML): Similarly Dismal Outcomes of AML After an Antecedent Hematologic Disorder and Therapy Related AML. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022;22(4):e233–e240.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    Awada H, Durmaz A, Gurnari C, et al. Machine learning integrates genomic signatures for subclassification beyond primary and secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2021;138(19):1885–1895.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Kuykendall A, Duployez N, Boissel N, Lancet JE, Welch JS. Acute Myeloid Leukemia: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018;38:555–573.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    Tashakori M, Kadia T, Loghavi S, et al. TP53 copy number and protein expression inform mutation status across risk categories in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2022;140(1):58–72.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.
    Granfeldt Østgård LS, Medeiros BC, Sengeløv H, et al. Epidemiology and Clinical Significance of Secondary and Therapy-Related Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A National Population-Based Cohort Study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(31):3641–3649.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.
    Schmaelter AK, Labopin M, Socié G, et al. Inferior outcome of allogeneic stem cell transplantation for secondary acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission as compared to de novo acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Cancer J. 2020;10(3):26.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Gerstung M, Papaemmanuil E, Martincorena I, et al. Precision oncology for acute myeloid leukemia using a knowledge bank approach. Nat Genet. 2017;49(3):332–340.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    Lancet JE, Uy GL, Newell LF, et al. CPX-351 versus 7+3 cytarabine and daunorubicin chemotherapy in older adults with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia: 5-year results of a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2021;8(7):e481–e491.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.
    Lancet JE, Uy GL, Cortes JE, et al. CPX-351 (cytarabine and daunorubicin) Liposome for Injection Versus Conventional Cytarabine Plus Daunorubicin in Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Secondary Acute Myeloid Leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(26):2684–2692.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    Price K, Cao Z, Lipkin C, Profant D, Robinson S. Comparison of Hospital Length of Stay and Supportive Care Utilization Between Patients Treated with CPX-351 and 7+3 for Therapy-Related Acute Myeloid Leukemia or Acute Myeloid Leukemia with Myelodysplasia-Related Changes. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2022;14:21–34.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Lachowiez CA, Loghavi S, Furudate K, et al. Impact of splicing mutations in acute myeloid leukemia treated with hypomethylating agents combined with venetoclax. Blood Adv. 2021;5(8):2173–2183.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Wright MF, Pozdnyakova O, Hasserjian RP, et al. Secondary-type mutations do not impact prognosis in acute myelogenous leukemia AML with mutated NPM1. Am J Hematol. 2022;97(12):E462–e465.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    Grob T, Al Hinai ASA, Sanders MA, et al. Molecular characterization of mutant TP53 acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. Blood. 2022;139(15):2347–2354.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    Weinberg OK, Siddon A, Madanat YF, et al. TP53 mutation defines a unique subgroup within complex karyotype de novo and therapy-related MDS/AML. Blood Adv. 2022;6(9):2847–2853.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.
    Fuhrmann I, Lenk M, Haferlach T, et al. AML, NOS and AML-MRC as defined by multilineage dysplasia share a common mutation pattern which is distinct from AML-MRC as defined by MDS-related cytogenetics. Leukemia. 2022;36(7):1939–1942.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Montalban-Bravo G, Kanagal-Shamanna R, Class CA, et al. Outcomes of acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia related changes depend on diagnostic criteria and therapy. Am J Hematol. 2020;95(6):612–622.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    Jentzsch M, Bischof L, Ussmann J, et al. Prognostic Impact of the 2022 European Leukemia Net Risk Classification in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Undergoing Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation. Blood. 2022;140(Supplement 1):10601–10602.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.
    Alkaabba F, Williams M, Corley E, et al. Prognostication of the 2016-Who AML with Myelodysplasia-Related Changes Subclass and Mutations in MDS-Related Genes Using the 2022 European Leukemianet Risk Classification: A Retrospective Study. Blood. 2022;140(Supplement 1):3237–3238.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.
    Senapati J, Short N, Maiti A, et al. Splicing Gene Mutations Do Not Affect Outcomes in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Blood. 2022;140(Supplement 1):1427–1429.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    Rausch C, Rothenberg-Thurley M, Dufour AM, et al. Validation of the 2022 European Leukemianet Genetic Risk Stratification of Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Blood. 2022;140(Supplement 1):3408–3409.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    Mecklenbrauck R, Borchert N, Funke C, et al. Prognostic Impact of Clonal Hierarchy of Myelodysplasia-Related Gene Mutations in AML Patients. Blood. 2022;140(Supplement 1):6254–6255.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Loghavi S, Reville PK, Lachowiez CA, et al. The Adverse Effect of Myelodysplasia-Related Mutations in De Novo Acute Myeloid Leukemia Is Associated with Higher Variant Allelic Frequency (VAF): A Proposal for a Numeric Cutoff for Variant Allelic Frequency. Blood. 2022;140(Supplement 1):6306–6308.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted December 27, 2022.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Interaction between myelodysplasia-related gene mutations and ontogeny in acute myeloid leukemia: an appraisal of the new WHO and IC classifications and ELN risk stratification
Joseph GW. McCarter, David Nemirovsky, Christopher A. Famulare, Noushin Farnoud, Abhinita S. Mohanty, Zoe S. Stone-Molloy, Jordan Chervin, Brian J. Ball, Zachary D. Epstein-Peterson, Maria E. Arcila, Aaron J. Stonestrom, Andrew Dunbar, Sheng F. Cai, Jacob L. Glass, Mark B. Geyer, Raajit K. Rampal, Ellin Berman, Omar I. Abdel-Wahab, Eytan M. Stein, Martin S. Tallman, Ross L. Levine, Aaron D. Goldberg, Elli Papaemmanuil, Yanming Zhang, Mikhail Roshal, Andriy Derkach, Wenbin Xiao
medRxiv 2022.12.26.22283876; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.26.22283876
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area